The increase alone will divert $900 million from cities, state agencies and, of course, school districts, which are struggling already to teach kids in crowded classrooms. Beaverton School District Superintendent Jeff Rose told parents via email last month that "many of our teachers ... are tired" after only two weeks of school. The district's PERS contribution will jump 59 percent, which will leave even less money for teachers and staff. How do you suppose they'll be feeling in 2015?

Some people argue reflexively that PERS reform is an assault of sorts on public employees. However, such a simplistic view doesn't square with reality in districts like Beaverton and Redmond, where, according to a board member who addressed the PERS board Friday, the higher rates are likely to reduce the teaching staff by 28. How can it be bad for public employees to reform a system that will rob 28 Redmond teachers, and hundreds of other public employees, of jobs? Or do public employees cease to matter when they're unemployed?

There are two reasons why public employees should support efforts to reduce PERS costs during next year's Legislature. The first is the unsustainable expense of the system, which affects them particularly. Public employees are laid off -- or not hired -- whenever employer contributions soar. Those who manage to keep their jobs often face more difficult working conditions, as is the case in Beaverton. And because they're also taxpayers and parents, public employees experience the consequences of slashed budgets from the consumer side. Their kids get stuck in those giant classes, too.

The second reason public employees should support PERS reform in 2013 is that tax reform will depend upon it. Gov. John Kitzhaber announced recently that he wants to mount another campaign to change the state's tax code, though he doesn't expect lawmakers to present voters with a menu of revisions until at least 2014. Ideally, voters at that time will be asked to approve some things many of them don't like (a sales tax and/or changes to the kicker) in exchange for some things many do like, including reductions of other taxes and, of course, comparative revenue stability.

Such a package will be a tough sell, at best. But it will be an impossible sell if lawmakers in 2013 fail, yet again, to address PERS. Oregonians will, again, roll their eyes and vote accordingly.

Why should public employees care about this? Because revenue stability is a good thing for those whose salaries are paid with tax dollars. In the absence of tax reform, public employees will continue to rely upon a system that provides revenue in fits and starts, overseen by a Legislature that spends everything. We're not naive enough to believe that lawmakers will ever chisel "fiscal restraint lives here" above the doors of the state Capitol. A more stable tax structure will at least mitigate the damage caused by their lack of discipline, however, as will a large and well-protected rainy day fund.

Republicans in the state House of Representatives wasted no time Friday calling anew for PERS reforms, including a proposal by Rep. Jason Conger, R-Bend, designed to reduce employer contributions and create a rate stabilization fund that would prevent giant hikes like those announced Friday.

These ideas may or may not prove workable. There may be better ways to reduce costs while protecting public employees. Let's have a debate. And let's get some results.